What's the worst sin out of the following two options:
>Including a technologically inferior weapon as a viable option in a higher tech setting. For example, having viable swords in a sci-fi setting.
>Including a technologically superior weapon as a viable option in a lower tech setting.For example, having sophisticated firearms in a medieval setting.
>>44451614
The first one
Swords aren't even used now, under what perceivable circumstance would they be used in a setting where technology has advanced tens or hundreds of times what we have available currently?
>>44451614
The latter. I feel like it's easier to make low tech weapons fit into a high tech setting comfortably than the reverse.
#1, because #2 owns.
>>44451614
The second one (barring time travel shenanigans) - making old tech viable again might be unlikely, but it can almost always be made as it was, and anachronisms in such things do exist - bayonets, for example
A weapon the lower tech setting just couldn't make, on the other hand, just kind of sticks out.
>>44451614
The second because that's pulling something out of your ass with no effort usually in order to try to be unique, whereas swords in sci-fi is usually because "People just think swords are cool".
Like let me ask you what is more annoying.
A space captain pulling a sword off the shelf that they just happen to own one when some space pirate kicks in his door, and he just manages to fend them off with it?
Or some asshole pulling out a fucking laser gun to shoot a horde of barbarians down while Knights stare on in confusion and embarrassment?
Unless we're going by rule of "The advanced futuristic weaponry is from the past and actually hard to obtain in the setting" in which case yeah that's fine.
>>44451656
Dune.
>>44451656
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill
And don't forget, knives are still standard equipment for many armed forces.
It's more sensible for something from the past to still be viable today, than to have something from the relative future available in the present.
Both are equallycool.
>>44451614
Second one is shit and always requires GM plot armour. First one can be cool, and doesn't always require the GM to spoonfeed his players OP shit.
How about this?
>including magic in a setting when it isn't really necessary
Is it a sin to appease guys with a hard-on for magic missiles?
>>44451683
That setting is actually super duper science fiction though. Just that planet is low tech
the second really needs alot of story to build in, and the entire world needs to be effected by its mere existence.
The first tho can easily work by a "its so simple you cant techno mcguffin your way past it" approach
As in, swords and arrows being too slow to trigger an energy shield, or lazers not working against armor polished to a mirror, or regular bullets being better than smart bullets because they cant have their guidance scrambled.
The main reason we fought with muskets instead of bows wasn't because they were better at killing, but that they required less training to go from civilian to soldier.
>>44451614
The latter is worse because sophisticated firearms shouldn't even exist in a medieval setting, whereas in a sci-fi setting, at least swords likely existed at one point so it could make sense that a modern version of them is "viable".
Pic related for instance. Sure, the "science" behind it is just magic but at least the concept of a sword makes sense in that setting. Having a fucking laser rifle or something in an early medieval setting just makes no sense because they wouldn't even have the concept of that kind of weapon, let alone the means to actually create and fuel it. Barring some kind of time travel bullshit.
Only time future weapons in an old-timey setting is okay is when those future weapons are actually old weapons from a long-dead civilization. And they rarely, if ever, see use.
>>44451614
>>Including a technologically inferior weapon as a viable option in a higher tech setting. For example, having viable swords in a sci-fi setting.
Is the worse sin. Definitely.
Where in the ladder its easily calked up to several reason why it's not common. Hard to made, scarcity, difficulty to maintain. Even if they are bad reason, they are still reasons.
In sci-fi there is no reason, considering you can make better weapons out of house-hold items.
>>44451614
Probably best place to ask this:
Some one explain Dune shields to me, please. I heard the people of dune gave up on laser weaponry because of Reasons and shields blowing up. Can someone go more into detail on this? Like... Why? Or How big an explosion? Etc
>>44456219
>However, if a lasgun beam hit a Holtzman field, it would result in sub-atomic fusion and a nuclear explosion. The center of this blast was determined by random chance; sometimes it would originate within the shield, sometimes within the laser weapon, sometimes both.
Nuke level.
>>44456289
Ok. Now I'm really confused. Why did the they give up on laser tech then? Because even if it obliterates all resources in an area, sounds like a wonderfully fantastic way to eradicate enemies. Why did they give up on the ranged weapons, and not say... the source of the problem The shield-tech.
>>44451614
Neither of those are sins and they can both be bitchin' as fuck, I reject your premise.
>>44456366
Sorry, let me also add. "We have remote weapons now. We have remote weapons when the book were written. We likely have better remote weapons then."
>>44451825
Well, that's why the posts says #1, not #2.
>>44456219
>>44456289
Additionally, on Arrakis specifically shield tech was rarely used because the planet's frequent sandstorms tended overload the shields and generally fuck up the whole mechanism. So using them there was generally prohibitively resource and maintenance intensive.
>>44451656>>44451614>>44451683
>>44456179
im gonna leave this here. first one isnt a sin
>>44451614
The real sin here is that you made this shitty thread.
>>44456366
Because if you shoot a shield YOU blow up.
Nobody wants that.
But you don't want to get rid of your shields, because ethen they can lasgun you with impunity. So everyone gets shields. But now you can't fight with lasguns. So everyone picks up blades.
>>44456705
ive seen shitier.
>>44456601
and even in star wars they have swords, axes, vibroblades, etc. that are still viable weapons
some can even deflect lightsabers
